Performance-based and parent ratings of attention in children treated for a brain tumor: The significance of radiation therapy and tumor location on outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children are at increased risk for cognitive difficulties following the diagnosis and treatment of a brain tumor. Radiation therapy (RT) and tumor location are commonly-cited predictors of neurocognitive functioning. Disruptions to foundational neurocognitive processes such as attention, working memory, and processing speed underlie declines on measures of general intellectual functioning. While several studies have examined visual sustained attention in pediatric brain tumor patients, auditory sustained attention has yet to be examined. This study employs a longitudinal design to examine performance-based and parent ratings of attention in children undergoing surgical resection of a brain tumor (n = 29) and treated with (n = 11) or without (n = 18) RT at 6.79 months post-surgery (baseline) and then again at 30.56 months post-surgery (follow-up). The measures include an auditory continuous performance test (CPT) and parent ratings of attention and hyperactivity on a behavior rating scale. Ultimately, children treated with and without RT performed similarly on performance-based and parent ratings of attention. However, the performance on the auditory CPT differed according to tumor location, with children with infratentorial tumors committing more inattention and inhibitory control errors compared to children with supratentorial tumors. Parent ratings did not differ according to tumor location, and parent ratings and auditory sustained attention performance are not significantly correlated. The findings are interpreted in the context of neurocognitive and brain development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".